Although lately the media (including the “liberal” New York Times) has been busily trying to drag us back to the Stone Age by promoting hunting, I still have to believe we’re gradually evolving overall as a species. Therefore, it’s time to suggest we stop using the term “human rights,” when talking about things that should be considered basic rights for all species.
The human race doesn’t need anything else singling it out to stroke its over-inflated, collective ego. Differentiating between human and non-human rights just encourages those who sneer or scoff at the idea of animal rights. Call it fairness, justice or common decency; or call them natural rights or individual rights. Better yet, why not just use the term animal rights and include human beings in with our fellow animal individuals, all deserving of kindness, consideration and respect.
This notion of human superiority is for the birds.
—Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved
Exposing the Big Game 
I hope we are gradually evolving into true sentient beings aware of our co-existence with the rest of life and what we are seeing is the last throes of our barbaric selves (remnants) but they are making a loud noise at the expense of remaining wildlife. We have to keep up the exposure of them, the questioning of their rationalizations and less and less tolerance for their ways. But some of them, many in absolute numbers are horrendous and we have to find ways to outlaw them.
Reblogged this on Time for Action.
I agree wholeheartedly, except I think in terms of sentient beings rights.
Reblogged this on Animal Connection.
Great point of view– I’m kind of ashamed I never looked at it that way.
Thanks, but don’t be ashamed–anthropocentricism is so prevalent in society we’re practically not even allowed to look at things that way.
Spot on Jim! I think of it this way, but always refer to “Civil Rights” (Humans) Animal Rights, (all other species) but since you too think this way, there has to be more and will practice a term that declares all to have equal Rights, we just have to get the legal system to understand, then we can move forward leaps and bounds. Soon I hope 🙂
The word human is to generic, it implies that everybody it is the same.
It should be just be called civil rights; then everyone has the right to be treated in a civilized matter, then when certain humans are incapable of treating everyone in a civilized manner the laws are there to protect those that need protecting .
You can add “sanctity of human life” to the list of murderously anthropocentric phrases because it is clearly meant to indicate that only human life is sacred, the life of any thing else being conditional. All lives (possibly excluding those of hunters/trappers!) are sacred and should only be taken under the most extreme circumstances; and that most certainly does not include satisfying selfish human recreational, gastronomic or scientific wants.
Amen.
I am in favor of animal as well as for human rights.
That is the way of the whole human being.
Abraham Lincoln
If only they’d have put that quote on the Lincoln Memorial.
Yes that would have been nice . Another one of my favorite of his ….
I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not better for it
Good one–I think that’s Mark Twain.
Sorry, my dad used to quote so many great man sometimes who said it is a little fuzzy. I guess I’m getting old.
No problem
Jim , I found the quote it was by Abraham Lincoln. I also came across this one of his that you might like. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
This one is from Immanuel Kant We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. of To Jim, and all of you who are fighting for the wolves you’re in the company of some great men remember that .
The argument of semantics is reasonable but too early in the game. When we speak about child labor or citizens jailed for public airing of their views, that IS known as Human Rights. When we refer to the horrors of dog breeders, abusers, animal bestiality, factory farms, mass kills, that IS animal rights.
These issues are already KNOWN this way. We cannot afford, at this point in time, as the animal welfare fight picks up steam, to confuse with a change in semantics. That would be a miss.
Rather, in every conversation about animals, we can also remind that, by virtue of homo sapiens being another species of ANIMAL, we are all part of the same family.
But, that’s as far as this word game can go at this point. To jump early as suggested in this article would be a MONUMENTAL mistake for the goals of ALL beings.
Totally agree, thank you for drawing attention to & explaining that subject so comprehensively.
Reblogged this on Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog.